Professional Documents
Culture Documents
August 2002
336
August 2002
Similarly, the conduct of case study research can be expanded to engage multiple and simultaneous studies using multiple research paradigms (e.g., inductiveto-deductive and deductive-to-inductive strategies). This chapter examines case
study and case study research and the role of case study research in theory-building
research for applied disciplines.
TABLE 1:
Yes
X
X
X
X
No
Note: It is important to note that there is not consensus on these five perspectives and that the affirmation of all five helps distinguish this chapter.
337
338
August 2002
techniques
Prepare to collect data
Collect data in the field
339
340
August 2002
light of the multiple-case phenomenon; however, each case must be examined on its own.
The researcher must also decide how to select the cases: Will they cover
similar or different geographic regions? Will they be the same size or different? Once the general description of the cases has been decided, Merriam
(1998) noted that case study research requires the identification of two units
of analysis. The first unit of analysis that must be identified is the case to be
studied. Then, unless the plan is to interview all participants in an organization, one would need to decide on a sampling technique to be representative
of the entire organization. Finally, Yin (1994) advocated that each case
study should either be similar to those previously studied by others or
should deviate in clear, operationally defined ways (p. 25). In this way, the
previous literature can be used as a guide for defining the new case and its
representative units of analyses.
A major strength of case study research is the ability to use multiple
sources and techniques. Case study research is viewed by many to be qualitative; however, and this is very important, it can also be quantitative. Tools
used in this type of data collection are usually surveys, interviews, document analysis, and observation, although standard quantitative measures
such as questionnaires are also used.
It is important that the researcher use specific tools for specific data collection. The study must be well constructed to ensure construct validity,
internal validity, external validity, and reliability. To pass these tests of
validity and reliability, explicit attention must be paid to the design of the
research study and to the processes used in the collection of the data, the
analysis of the data, and the reporting of the findings (Herling et al., 2000).
Construct validity requires the researcher to select the correct tool or
method for the concepts being studied. Internal validity demonstrates that
the conditions being observed will necessarily lead to other conditions and
is discovered by triangulating various pieces of evidence. The researcher
must establish a credible line of evidence that can be followed to these conclusions. External validity usually determines if the findings can be generalized beyond the one or multiple cases being studied. The more individuals
one can interview, the more and different observations that can be made and
still yield the same results, and the more external validity that can be demonstrated. Relating findings back to the literature also helps in external validity. Reliability refers to how well the procedures are documented to ensure
that the research can be replicated.
Prepare to Collect the Data
Case study researchers will typically begin a study using only one
method of data collection and will add others as the situation warrants it.
The added benefit of this process is that it can enhance the validity of case
study findings through triangulation. Preparation for the vast amounts of
data prior to collection will save the researcher much time and frustration
later. Due to the nature of case study research, the researcher will generate
large amounts of data from multiple sources. Time taken to plan prior to the
research will allow one to organize multiple databases and set categories for
sorting and managing the data.
It is also important to train individuals if people other than the researcher
will be doing fieldwork, collecting data, and performing document analyses. Qualifications also include being able to ask good questions and the
ability to interpret answers; document analysis includes the ability to read
between the lines to ascertain hidden meanings. When using other individuals for your fieldwork, it is a good idea to conduct a pilot test using some of
the same data-gathering techniques that will be used in the case study. In this
manner, problematic areas can be corrected.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge the personal involvement of the
researcher in case study research data collection. A question of validity will
always arise if the reader considers the researcher too close to the content to
be subjective. One solution, as proposed by Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996), is a
subjectivity audit. This audit consists of taking notes about situations connected to ones research that brought about strong positive or negative feelings. The outcome could be a list of different aspects of the researcher that
describe areas in which the researchers own beliefs and background influenced his or her perceptions and actions in the research setting (Gall et al.,
1996).
There are really no firm rules about how much personal involvement or
disclosure by the researcher is appropriate. If self-disclosure passes a certain point, case study participants and readers of the report will view it as a
distraction, or worse, they may begin to question the researchers qualifications and validity of the studys findings. On the other hand, brief comments
by the researcher about his or her background and experiences relevant to
the case study may facilitate data collection and the readers ability to better
understand the findings (Gall et al., 1996).
Collect Data in the Field
Data collection is emergent in case study research. That means what the
researcher learns from the data collected at one point in time often is used to
determine subsequent data collection. The researcher therefore must collect
and store multiple sources of data, in a systematic manner. The storing of the
data is critical so as to allow for patterns and themes to emerge. One must
always keep the original object in mind and observe causal factors associated with the observed phenomenon. It is important to make formative eval-
341
342
August 2002
uation checks so arrangements can be made in the event that factors arise
causing the manner in which the case is evaluated to change. Case study
research is flexible, but when changes are made, they must be documented
systematically. Field notes document this process; they record feelings and
hunches, pose questions, and document the work of the case.
The decision when to end the data-collection stage of case study research
involves both practical and theoretical considerations. Time and budgetary
constraints, or the observation that the participants patience is running out,
are among the practical considerations that can prompt a decision to end
data collection (Gall et al., 1996).
Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba (1985) have identified four criteria for determining when it is appropriate to end data collection.
1. Exhaustion of sources: Data sources (e.g., key informants, document
analysis) can be recycled and tapped many times, but at some point, it
should become clear that little more information or relevance will be
gained from further engagement with them.
2. Saturation of categories: Eventually, the categories used to code data
appear to be definitively established. When continuing data collection
produces only tiny increments of new information about categories in
comparison to the effort expended to get them, the researcher can feel
confident about ending data collection.
3. Emergence of regularities: At some point, the researcher encounters sufficient consistencies in the data that allows the researcher to develop a
sense of whether the phenomena represented by each construct occur
regularly or only occasionally.
4. Overextension: Even if new information is still coming in, the researcher
might develop a sense that the new information is far removed from the
central core of viable categories that have emerged and does not contribute usefully to the emergence of additional viable categories.
Evaluate and Analyze the Data
The researcher now evaluates the data using an array of interpretations to
find any and all relationships that may exist with reference to the research
questions. The discovery of constructs in qualitative data can be a significant outcome to a case study. The case study method, with its many different
data-collection and analyzing techniques, allows researchers opportunities
to triangulate data to strengthen the findings.
If the researcher used a multiple-case design, the generalizability of
constructs and themes across cases can be checked. This could include
whether a particular theme observed in one case was also present in other
cases. Multiple-case data can also be analyzed to detect rational or causal
patterns. The researchers constructs can be thought of as variables. Each
case can be given a score on each variable, say 0 = absent and 1 = present, or
0 = absent and 1 = present, to a moderate degree. If the scores on one variable
across all cases systematically covary with scores on another variable, the
researcher can infer a relational or causal pattern (Gall et al., 1996).
The two popular types of analysis used in case study research are structural analysis and reflective analysis. Structural analysis is the process of
examining case study data for the purpose of identifying patterns inherent in
discourse, text, events, or other phenomena. Structural analysis is used in
conversation analysis, ethnoscience, and other qualitative research
methods.
Reflective analysis is associated with several other qualitative methods
such as critical science and phenomenology. Reflective analysis could be
used in case studies to draw on other qualitative research traditions. Its use
involves a decision by the researcher to rely on his or her own intuition and
personal judgment to analyze the data rather than on technical procedures
involving explicit category classification systems (Gall et al., 1996).
It is important to sort data in as many ways as possible to seek unintended
outcomes that may not be apparent in the beginning. Additional interviews,
short and pointed, may be necessary at this point to dig deeper into a finding.
Another method is to use different investigators than the first time to gain a
different perspective. When multiple observations converge, strength in the
conclusions increases and confidence is established.
Prepare the Report
The goal of the report is to present the conclusions to the questions posed
by the research in a way that the reader can understand. Two types of reports
are popular for case study researchers. Reflective reporting, where the
writer will use literary devices to bring the case alive for the reader and the
strong presence of the researchers voice is apparent, and analytic reporting,
which notes an objective writing style (the researchers voice is either silent
or subdued). In the analytic style, the report generally has a conventional
organization: introduction, review of the literature, methodology, results,
and discussion (Gall et al., 1996).
In whatever style one chooses, the report should be presented so that the
reader could apply the same experience in his or her setting. It is important to
display enough evidence to convince the reader of the conclusions, to ensure
the reader that no stone was left unturned. As was the case in preparing for
data collection, it is advisable to have other individuals review the report to
ensure clarity and completeness.
Case studies are complex because they generally involve multiple
sources of data, may include multiple cases within a study, and produce
large amounts of data for analysis. Researchers from many disciplines use
the case study method of research to build on theory, to produce new theory,
to dispute or challenge theory, to explain a situation, to provide a basis to
343
344
August 2002
apply solutions to situations, to explore, or to describe an object or phenomenon. The advantages of the case study method are its applicability to reallife, contemporary, human situations and its public accessibility through
written reports. Case study results relate directly to the common readers
everyday experience and facilitate an understanding of complex real-life
situations (Soy, 1996).
This does not in any way lessen the importance of using quantitative data
sources.
In promoting the use of mixed data for triangulation, Jik (1979) argued
that quantitative data and qualitative data were equally important to the
researcher, serving in a sense as a system of checks and balances. Quantita-
tive data, which can indicate relationships that may not be immediately evident to the researcher, can keep the researcher from being blinded by vivid
but potentially misleading impressions presented in the form of qualitative
data. At the same time, the qualitative data can be important in building an
understanding of the theory underlying the relationships revealed in the
quantitative data. It is important that the researcher consider both, although
as the researcher will generally collect literature that may inform but may
not be used, the same can be said of data collection.
The use of multiple-case and multiple-paradigm case study research generally requires a research team. Eisenhardt (1989) pointed out that the use of multiple investigators provides the researchertheory builder with two advantages.
First, multiple investigators
often have complementary insights which add to the richness of the data, and their different perspectives increase the likelihood of capitalizing on any novel insights which may be in the data.
Second, the convergence of observations from multiple investigators enhances confidence in the
findings, . . . while conflicting perceptions keep the group from premature closure. (p. 538)
In theory building, the case study researcher can leverage the advantage provided by a mixed-method approach by using one investigative team to collect
qualitative data and a second team to collect quantitative data, keeping the activities of each team separate through the beginning data collection and initial analysis. Following the initial analysis, the separate teams then converge and
exchange their data, analyze them, and compare their separate findings and preliminary conclusions. The reiterative process of theory building begins as each
team, equipped with new insight, collects, analyzes, and shares more data.
Eisenhardt (1989) suggested, Theory developed from case study
research is likely to have important strengths like novelty, testability, and
empirical validity (p. 548). The possibility of generating new theory
increases with case study research. This is because of the application context in which research is being conducted and because creative insight
often arises from the juxtaposition of contradictory or paradoxical evidence, and this constant juxtaposition of conflicting realities (differences
across cases, different types of data, and different investigators) tends to
unfreeze thinking (p. 546).
Under the right conditions, factors that generate strength can alternatively be viewed as weaknesses. Although the empirical validity of theory
generated from case study research is high because the process is intimately
tied with the evidence (Eisenhardt, 1989), the extensive use of empirical evidence can also produce a high level of complexity. Parsimony is a recognized characteristic of good theory (Patterson, 1986), but theory builders
working from the rich, voluminous data provided by case study research can
lose this perspective and may be unable to recognize which relationships are
the most important.
345
346
August 2002
DESIGN
Conduct 1st
Case Study
interviews
observations
documents
Select
Cases
Conduct 2nd
Case Study
Develop
Theory
interviews
relate
study to
previous
theory
aim for
explanation
Design Data
Collection
Protocol
define
"process"
operationally
define
"process outcomes" (not
just ultimate
effects)
use formal
data collection
techniques
347
observations
documents
Write
Individual
Case Report
CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS
Draw Cross-Case
Conclusions
pattern-match
policy implications
Modify Theory
Write
Individual
Case Report
pattern-match
Develop Policy
Implications
policy implications
replication
Write Cross-Case
Report
Conduct
Remaining
Case Studies
etc.
Write
Individual
Case Report
etc.
348
TABLE 2:
Step
Getting started
Selecting cases
Activity
Definition of research question
Possibly a priori constructs
Neither theory nor hypotheses
Specified population
Theoretical, not random, sampling
Crafting
instruments
and protocols
Entering the field
Analyzing data
Within-case analysis
Cross-case pattern search using divergent techniques
Shaping hypotheses
Enfolding literature
Reason
Focuses efforts
Provides better grounding of construct measures
Retains theoretical flexibility
Constrains extraneous variation and sharpens external validity
Focuses efforts on theoretically useful cases, that is, those that
replicate or extend theory by filling conceptual categories
Strengthens grounding of theory by triangulation of evidence
Synergistic view of evidence
Fosters divergent perspectives and strengthens grounding
Speeds analyses and reveals helpful adjustments to data collection
Allows investigators to take advantage of emergent themes and
unique case features
Gains familiarity with data and preliminary theory generation
Forces investigators to look beyond initial impressions and see
evidence through multiple lenses
Sharpens construct definition, validity, and measurability
Confirms, extends, and sharpens theory
Builds internal validity
Builds internal validity, raises theoretical level, and sharpens
construct definitions
Sharpens generalizability, improves construct definition, and raises
theoretical level
Ends process when marginal improvement becomes small
Source: Eisenhardt (1989, p. 533). Academy of Management Review by Eisenhardt. Copyright 1989 by ACAD OF MGMT. Reproduced with permission of
ACAD OF MGMT in the format Journal via Copyright Clearance Center.
349
350
August 2002
Theorizing
to
Practice
DEDUCTIVE
Conceptual
Development
Operationalization
DEDUCTIVE
Continuous
Refinement
and
Development
1
Application
INDUCTIVE
2
Confirmation or
Disconfirmation
INDUCTIVE
Practice
to
Theorizing
FIGURE 2:
The Specific Roles of Case Study Research in Context of the General Method of
Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines
Note: Specific roles:case study research as a method for fulfilling specific phases of theory building in
applied disciplines. Role 1: application of an already conceptualized and operationalized theory (single or multiple cases), Role 2: confirmation or disconfirmation of a conceptualized or
operationalized theory (single or multiple cases), Role 3: application for the purpose of creating or
advancing conceptualizing and operationalizing of a theory (single or multiple cases), and Role 4:
continuous refinement and development of a fully developed theory (single or multiple cases).
Step 5 has the researcher analyzing the data for linkages, insights, and
other ways for connection with the research questions. This step also compares the data collected by quantitative as well as qualitative methods to discover if the findings are similar or different. Finally, the researcher will
answer all the how and why questions to satisfaction.
Role 3. Case application for the purpose of creating or advancing the conceptualization and operationalization of a theory (single or multiple cases). In
this role, case study research approaches the purpose and methodology of
grounded study researchthe conceptual development and operationalization
of a new theory. The primary difference has to do with case study research being
able to bring existing theory constructs to the inquiry as well as preplanned datacollection strategies.
351
352
August 2002
to
Practice
DEDUCTIVE
Conceptual
Development
DEDUCTIVE
Operationalization
E
Continuous
Refinement
and
Development
C
D
Application
Confirmation or
Disconfirmation
4
INDUCTIVE
INDUCTIVE
Practice
to
Theorizing
FIGURE 3:
The Overarching Role of Case Study Research in Context of the General Method of
Theory Building in Applied Disciplines
Note: Overarching role:case study research as a strategy for bringing together multiple methods for
the purpose of fulfilling all the phases of the general method of theory building in applied disciplines.
Multiparadigm team research (in one or more case settings): (1) Use grounded theory research for
Phases A and B,(2) use meta-analysis research for Phases A and B,(3) synthesize multiple studies,(4)
use standard case study research for Phases D and C, (5) use a series of quasi-experimental studies
for Phases D and C, (6) synthesize findings, and (7) use multiple case studies for Phase E.
References
Clardy, A. (1997). Studying your workforce: Applied research methods and tools for
training and development practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisenhardt, E. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th
ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Glaser, B. (1978). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. In Qualitative research
methods (Series 32). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Herling, R. W., Weinberger, L., & Harris, L. (2000). Case study research: Defined for
application in the field of HRD. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Human Resource
Development Research Center.
Jik, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611.
Kardos, G., & Smith, C. O. (1979). On writing engineering cases. Proceedings of the
American Society for Engineering Education National Conference on Engineering
Case Studies, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lynham, S. A. (2000). Theory building in the human resource profession. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 159-178.
Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied
disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221-241.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merseth, K. K. (1994). Cases, case methods, and the professional development of educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401272)
Mintzberg, H. (1979). An emerging strategy of direct research. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24, 580-589.
Patterson, C. H. (1986). Theories of counseling and psychotherapy (4th ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Soy, S. K. (1996). The case study as a research method. Retrieved December 1, 2001,
from University of Texas, Graduate School of Library and Information Science Web
site: http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 236-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Torraco, R. J. (1997). Theory building research methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F.
Holton (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook: Linking research
and practice (pp. 114-138). San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 58-65.
353
354
August 2002
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Applied Social Research
Methods Series, 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (Applied Social Research
Methods Series, 5, 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.